ROBERT WHEELER v. STATE OF MARYLAND
Court of Appeals of Maryland, Hotten, June 25, 2018,
Chain of Custody – CDS- Where a member of the chain of custody is unavailable after a request under CJP 10-1003, the state need only prove “a reasonable probability that no tampering occurred.”
Affirming COSA Opinion
(Concur – Watts with Adkins – Review should be for abuse of discretion in a CJP 10-1002/1003 case)
Facts:
A BPD undercover officer purchased 3 baggies of suspected heroin from street level dealers on Park Heights Avenue. Two of the baggies were orange and the 3rd was clear with blue writing on it.
The officer took the baggies back to the station, where they were turned over to the packaging/submitting officer for that day. The undercover officer did not actually see the baggies labeled or packaged. The same CC number from the undercover officer’s report was written on the CDS packaging. The drugs then went to ECU, where they were ultimately transferred to the drug lab for analysis.
Wheeler was charged as one of the drug sellers in this case. Prior to trial, he demanded all witnesses in the chain of custody of the CDS evidence pursuant to CJ 10-1003. However the packaging officer was not available for trial. The State called the undercover officer to describe the drugs he purchased, what he did with them, and how/when he turned them over to the packaging officer. The officer identified the 3 small baggies inside the packaging as the ones he had purchased. Then the chemist testified as to how she received the sealed package of evidence with the 3 baggies inside.
Over a defense objection, the judge ruled that the State had satisfied its burden to authenticate the evidence even though a person in the chain of custody had not testified. The drugs were admitted and Wheeler was convicted. He appealed, claiming the State did not properly establish a chain of custody for the CDS evidence.
Held: The Court held that the evidence was admissible because the undercover officer was able to identify the CDS based on unique characteristics (quantity, color, packaging) and the circumstances demonstrated a reasonable probability that no tampering occurred.
Chain of Custody – CDS – The Maryland Code contains a “shortcut” that allows the government to establish chain of custody for CDS without having every person ever to handle the drug appear in court.
CJP 10-1001 allows a chemist report to establish the nature of the substance without the chemist testifying
CJP 10-1002 allows a signed chain of custody form to substitute for the presence of each member of the chain of custody
CJP 10-1003 Requires presence of the chemist or member of the chain of custody on request from the defense
Chain of custody of CDS evidence – Persons in the chain of custody of CDS evidence are defined as (1) the seizing officer, (2) the packaging officer (if a different person), and (3) the chemist.
Chain of custody of CDS evidence – CJ 10-1001 to 10-1003 is a statutory “shortcut” which the State may sometimes use to prove the chain of custody of CDS evidence without the testimony of all witnesses in the chain of custody.
Chain of custody of CDS evidence – If a defendant objects to the shortcut, he can demand the State not be allowed to use it. But the 10-1003 demand does not mean the State literally always must call each and every person in the chain of custody to testify. That would place an extra burden on the State which the rules regarding authentication of evidence do not require.
Authentication of evidence – The State must always show that any item of evidence is actually what the prosecution claims it is. Regarding CDS evidence, the State must also show a reasonable probability that the item was not tampered with from the time police seized it until it was tested.
From the case: The Court found that there was enough evidence here that the 3 baggies of drugs had not been tampered with where: (1) the baggies were identified by the officer and had distinctive colors/ characteristics; (2) the CC number was the same on the evidence and the officer’s report; (3) these were the only drugs the officer had purchased that day; (4) the paperwork indicated the drugs were packaged very soon after submission; and (5) the chemist received them in a heat sealed package.
From the case: “It is clear that the trial court found that there was sufficient evidence that the drugs seized by [the undercover officer] were the same drugs analyzed and offered at trial, regardless of the absence of the packaging officer’s testimony.”